compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

You asked for a link to back up my claim that more than half of all professional philosophers are compatibilists. I gave the link, I hope most of those words you wrote are just acknowledging that I was in fact correct about that.

You should read those words. I gave you credit where credit is due. However...

However you made the assumption I described as moronic?

No, you went there yourself. I did not. So you get your own adjective back, I guess.

[Flannel Jesus]

I read enough of your rant to know that you did make that assumption. I haven't yet had a conversation with you where you reply to the things I actually said instead of stuff you want to imagine I said.

What I actually said is simple, and nothing to do with whether compatibilism is true or makes sense. I said compatibilists don't have to be determinists. That's it.

Do you disagree with that? Do you think compatibilists DO have to be determinists? If not, then what are all those paragraphs of text about?

[Immanuel Can]

What I actually said is simple, and nothing to do with whether compatibilism is true or makes sense. I said compatibilists don't have to be determinists. That's it.

And yet, they do. So...

Do you disagree with that? Do you think compatibilists DO have to be determinists?

Absolutely. Assuming Compatiblists wish to be rational people...which is actually an incorrect assumption, maybe, but the most charitable one.

If Determinism is true, then, by definition, any free will is merely illusory. There's no possible "compatibility," because Determinism is an absolute claim: it insists that there is NO free will in the universe anywhere, and that EVERY phenomenon is the result of something like a material-causal inevitability or fate or the will of a Deterministic "god" figure. But if any measure at all of Voluntarism or libertarian free will exists, or if any volition of any kind is genuine, the only way that can be is if Determinism of all those kinds is not true. Again, no "compatibility," and hence, no Compatiblism.

[Flannel Jesus]

What I actually said is simple, and nothing to do with whether compatibilism is true or makes sense. I said compatibilists don't have to be determinists. That's it.

And yet, they do. So...

Where's the argument for that?

It's certainly not in the rest of the text I cut off from my quote. I read it and it quite clearly can't be the argument, so what is?

[Immanuel Can]

What I actually said is simple, and nothing to do with whether compatibilism is true or makes sense. I said compatibilists don't have to be determinists. That's it.

And yet, they do. So...

Where's the argument for that?

Right below. Keep reading.

[Flannel Jesus]

And yet, they do. So...

Where's the argument for that?

Right below. Keep reading.

That wasn't an argument for it

If I say a and b are compatible, is that the same thing as saying a and b are both simultaneously true?

[Immanuel Can]

Where's the argument for that?

Right below. Keep reading.

That wasn't an argument for it

It certainly was. Anyone can see that.

If I say a and b are compatible, is that the same thing as saying a and b are both simultaneously true?

Yes. It means that both can exist or be real at the same time: that affirming the one does not eliminate the other.

But let's see what you understand by "Determinism." I have a feeling you may be working with a different understanding, but we can see...Let me ask it this way:

How many actions of free will can what you call a "Determinist" allow to exist or to have existed?

[Flannel Jesus]

Right below. Keep reading.

That wasn't an argument for it

It certainly was. Anyone can see that.

If I say a and b are compatible, is that the same thing as saying a and b are both simultaneously true?

Yes. It means that both can exist or be real at the same time: that affirming the one does not eliminate the other.

both CAN exist, which is clearly different from both DO exist.

[Immanuel Can]

That wasn't an argument for it

It certainly was. Anyone can see that.

If I say a and b are compatible, is that the same thing as saying a and b are both simultaneously true?

Yes. It means that both can exist or be real at the same time: that affirming the one does not eliminate the other.

both CAN exist, which is clearly different from both DO exist.

No, actually, both cannot exist.

But again, give me your definition of how much free will a Determinist can allow to exist or have existed. And we'll soon straighten this out.

[Flannel Jesus]

It certainly was. Anyone can see that.


Yes. It means that both can exist or be real at the same time: that affirming the one does not eliminate the other.

both CAN exist, which is clearly different from both DO exist.

No, actually, both cannot exist.

This response is really so typical from you lately. Once again you drastically miss what the conversation is about.

We are not talking about if compatibilism is true. We are talking about what it means for things to be compatible. The fact that you cannot keep the actual context of the conversation in mind, and you keep making these kinds of errors throughout our conversations, makes it literally useless to try talking to you.

You are not capable of these kinds of conversations. I don't know what exactly is wrong with you, why you find it so hard to distinguish conversations about if compatibilism is true from conversations about what it means to be compatible, but whatever it is, I can't fix it for you, and we can't talk about this until you fix it.

[Immanuel Can]

both CAN exist, which is clearly different from both DO exist.

No, actually, both cannot exist.

This response is really so typical from you lately.

Great. Now, how about an answer to my question? I asked (this is for the third time):

But again, give me your definition of how much free will a Determinist can allow to exist or have existed. And we'll soon straighten this out.

We are not talking about if compatibilism is true.

You are, by definition, if you're using the word "Compatibilism" at all. Because if Determinism and free will are NOT actually compatible, then the term "Compatibilism" is a misnomer, and a fake concept. So if you're going to use the word "Compatiblism" at all, it needs to be a possible thing.

Otherwise, you've reduced the whole discussion to "How many unicorns can dance on the head of a leprechaun?"

Now, we can fix this. Just answer the very simple question. How much? How much free will can a Determinist accept?

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not having a discussion with you when you can't even tell what a conversation is about. When you can't tell the difference between someone talking about what it means for things to be compatible, and whether or not compatibilism is true. I'm not wasting my time when you can't tell what we're actually talking about.

You consistently cannot tell.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, we can fix this. Just answer the very simple question. How much? How much free will can a Determinist accept?

I'm not having a discussion with you...

Ah. So you know the answer, but are afraid to say it...because when you do, you'll either a) expose that you don't know what "Determinism" entails, or b) have to admit that I was right about Compatiblism: it's a fake position.

[promethean75]

As a Wittgensteinian-Lichtensteinian I do think confusions arise when we use the word 'determine' to characterize what we mean when we talk about causality and its effect, and when we use the word 'will' to describe the thing that has this freedom we are talking about.

[phyllo]

What freedom are we talking about?

Freedom from influence of the past?